After two years as Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer remains something of an enigma to Canadians. He is neither greatly disliked nor greatly liked: as many (31 per cent) had a positive view of him as negative in a recent Abacus Data poll.

That his party now leads the governing Liberals by half a dozen points, then, is less because of any great enthusiasm for Scheer than the prime minister’s present bad odour. That may fade, as the SNC Lavalin affair recedes into memory and the economy continues to strengthen, notwithstanding the supposed “job-killing carbon tax.”

Moreover, Scheer himself is vulnerable to Liberal attacks, in part because he is so little known, in part because of his own rhetoric on certain issues. The voters who have been deserting the Liberals have not only gone to the NDP and the Greens; as many or more, Abacus’s polling shows, have gone to the Conservatives.

But not enough of them have. If Scheer wants to close the deal, he must not only put to rest the doubts of those Liberal-Conservative switchers, but also give NDP and Green voters sufficient peace of mind to stay with their preferred parties in the face of the inevitable appeals to unite under the Liberal flag to “keep the Tories out.”

So the Conservative leader’s recently launched series of speeches, each on a different topic, under the overarching title My Vision for Canada, is a welcome development. It’s always a good thing when political leaders present their thoughts at greater length and in greater depth than a sound-bite or campaign ad. But in Scheer’s case it’s also smart politics.

The first in the series was this week’s overview of Conservative foreign policy, which might best be described as reassuringly mainstream. Scheer’s first ventures into the abroad, from his endorsement of the Brexit disaster to his fevered warnings about the supposed threat to Canada posed by a non-binding United Nations declaration on the rights of migrants, were not just erratic: they suggested an interest in courting the populist, “anti-globalist” right.

Tuesday’s speech looked like a decisive break with that. The criticisms it made of the present government’s approach to foreign policy — that it had been too eager to cozy up to China, while botching potential openings with Japan and India; that it was as wishy-washy in opposition to Iran as it was in support of Israel; and above all, that it had mishandled the relationship with our most important ally, the United States, not just with its president — could have been made by any Conservative leader, and not a few Liberal ones.

To be sure, it was light on concrete policy proposals. For all the emphasis on a “reset” in relations with the Chinese dictatorship, for example, it was hard to see how Scheer’s particular suggestions — pulling out of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, complaining about China to the World Trade Organization — would change much.

Scheer's foreign policy speech might best be described as reassuringly mainstream

A call to “depoliticize” military procurement was likewise little more than a sketch: giving all parties in the House “greater say on the front end of the decision-making process,” his only particular, sounds like a recipe for more politicization rather than less. The rest — supporting Ukraine, listing Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist entity, joining the U.S. ballistic missile defence program, a stronger military, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital — was familiar Conservative ground.

If the speech had a vision, it was of the need, in the new/old world of great power rivalry — the product both of America’s withdrawal from leadership and Chinese and Russian assertiveness — to build a “community of free democracies,” and of the opportunities for Canadian leadership this presents. Perhaps that is not all that different from something Chrystia Freeland would propose. Perhaps that does not matter.

Of course, foreign policy rarely wins Canadian elections; Scheer was mostly attempting to present his credentials as a prime minister in waiting. The later speeches in the series will be far more crucial, beginning with next week’s installment on the economy. No doubt Scheer will want to keep much in reserve here, to be revealed later in the platform. But he can use it to begin to lay out what his values are, and where his priorities lie.

But voters tend — rightly or wrongly – to give Conservatives the benefit of the doubt on the economy. To reach the voters he needs to reach, it is the later speeches — on the environment (read: climate change), immigration, and federalism — that will be crucial.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer speaks at the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations on May 7, 2019.Sebastien St-Jean/AFP/Getty Images

On climate change, Scheer has yet to put forward a plan for meeting Canada’s international commitments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If he were serious about public policy, he would sign on to carbon pricing — there’s plenty of room to do so in a distinctly Conservative way. Alas, that appears to be too much to expect. But if he is serious about becoming prime minister, he has to have a plan of some kind.

On immigration, the Conservative leader must make clear, as forcefully as he can, that whatever criticisms he might make of Liberal immigration policy — and there are legitimate criticisms to be made — he believes in a humane and welcoming immigration and refugee policy, and wants no part of any anti-immigrant movement. He must explicitly reject their views, and renounce their support.

On federalism, finally, he will have to show how traditional Conservative support for provincial autonomy can be squared with the need for federal leadership, particularly on issues like pipelines and internal free trade; and he will have to explain how recent Conservative overtures to Quebec nationalists, notably on the collection of taxes, will serve rather than imperil national unity.

The speeches arrive at a moment of opportunity for the Conservative leader. The threat to his right flank posed by Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party seems not to have materialized. He has the chance now to reach out to centrist voters, if only he will take it.

While someone might eat a Beyond Meat burger for ethical reasons, it does little for that person's health. In fact, it might be more harmful than good

This Week's Flyers

Comments

Postmedia is pleased to bring you a new commenting experience. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. Visit our community guidelines for more information.